Over at the "Classic Adventure Gaming" discord, there is a channel/thread with the subject title of this blog post. The originator of the conversation had several questions they wanted addressed, including:
- Why is it the Fantasy Adventure Gaming style prefers AD&D to other "old school" versions of the game?
- Is running a B/X game in the Adventure Gaming style possible?
- Is the Advanced Fantasy of OSE a reasonable middle ground?
- Is running a game RAW an element of Adventure Gaming?
- Any advice on how to sell AD&D to your players who like B/X for the simplicity?
This was posed back in November (when I was deep in the heart of Mexico), or I would have weighed in (duh). As is, most of what I would have said was rather sufficiently answered (and probably more succinctly and elegantly) than anything I would have written anyway.
And, yet, the subject continues to come up, in various shapes and forms: here was a comment recently posed on
a different blog:
"...what’s the beef people have with OSE? It’s a retelling of BX using modern layout and publishing tools."
[this with regard to a criticism of OSE: Advanced being less-than-wonderful as a system for high level game play]
Of course, here at the B/X Blackrazor blog, I made my "reputation" (such as it is) in part by propping up the B/X system and extolling its virtues, long before there even was such a thing as "OSE" (close to ten years before, seeing as I started blogging circa 2009). So, I think it's safe to say I know some stuff about B/X play...the good and the bad. I think, if required, I could defend the system pretty well...the Basic edition of the game does have virtues, not the least of which include its clarity, accessibility, compactness, and simplicity.
These are EXCELLENT things...for learning how to play D&D.
I now run AD&D exclusively (when I run games) even for new (i.e. "never have I experienced D&D") players. Not because it is clear, accessible, compact, or simple...first edition AD&D is NONE of those things. But none of those things matter to ME, because I already know how to play and (more importantly) how to RUN D&D. I know how to be a Dungeon Master. Can I be a better one? Absolutely...one can always get better at their craft. Experience, practice, self-evaluation/reflection, research...all these things go into honing one's skills (not just running and managing players, but building worlds and scenarios and running campaigns). It is an on-going process of refinement. If I am judged a "better DM" than others (I won't make that claim myself), it is ONLY because I've been doing it longer. There are PLENTY of DMs out there that have been doing it longer than me, who are smarter than me, who have been more consistent than me. But I know that I am competent...and I think that most people should be able to obtain a solid degree of competence with a few decades of practice; I am not unique in this regard.
SO...part of being a competent DM is knowing how to run the game at table. And running the game at table OFTEN involves picking up the slack for players. It is not imperative for players to know all the rules of the system (though the best players will have a high degree of knowledge/mastery when it comes to game mechanics). However, it IS imperative...heck, essential...that the DM has a good grasp of the game concepts and how they function. Which is one of the reasons the original B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) edition of D&D is so darn good...it provides ALL THE TOOLS NEEDED for a beginning Dungeon Master to 'learn the ropes:' clarity, accessibility, compactness, and simplicity. You have a Basic book of 64 pages (with plenty of examples) describing the most elementary concepts of a very complex game, and then an Expert book of 64 pages (most of which is simply new CONTENT...spells, monsters, treasure, extended tables...not CONCEPTS) to fill in a few additional "blank" spots in the game. These are GREAT TOOLS...for learning how to play D&D.
Everyone needs to learn how to play somehow. Learning to play as a player is "a piece of easy, chummer" so long as you have a competent DM running the game; most folks content to play a PC have little need to crack a rule book at all, except as a reference. The lack of actual nuts-n-bolts mechanics (saves, combat tables, etc.) in the original PHB may have simply been Gygax acknowledging the way MOST players approach the game: the DM is going to tell them their "target numbers" for dice rolls (or what followers are going to be available, etc.), what they need to know is how close they are to leveling up, and what new capabilities such leveling will convey to their character (in terms of hit dice, spells, skill percentages, etc.). The PHB is a lovely reference...and everything a (1E) player really needs as a reference.
Learning to be a Dungeon Master is a different story. It requires reading (and knowing and understanding) the rule books. I will argue (strenuously) that it's not something you just "pick up" from watching other DMs at the table or...worse!...from videos on Ye Old Internet. Such viewing can CLARIFY certain concepts, but you have to read the damn book. You have to know the game to run the game, and the knowing comes from reading (and learning) the rules which (surprise!) are found in the rulebook.
The B/X rules are short. Even at 64 pages, Moldvay's book includes...roughly...thirty-three pages of instructional text, of which at least five pages are EXAMPLES of: character creation, encumbrance, x.p. calculation, combat, dungeon design, and running a session. So, 27-28 pages of instruction? Is that too many? I don't think so...but I'm an old man who grew up reading books from a young age. If you want to learn how to be a Dungeon Master for the greatest game ever penned, I think that an afternoon or evening's reading seems like a small price to pay for the opportunity.
'Great, JB. We get it. SO...why then make AD&D your staple for adventure gaming? Why not just run Labyrinth Lord or OSE, or (even) "OSE Advanced" if you miss the inclusion of illusionists and beholders? Why insist on running 1st edition? What gives man?!'
B/X is a GREAT game...for learning to play D&D. But for running the game long-term, it is my opinion that you need a more robust game system. I have written about it at length before, but those posts are divided over many topics. Let's see if I can collate them here.
First you have to get on-board with a premise: that the game is at its best when run in the form of a long-term campaign. That means: there is a (fictional) world that PCs adventure in, that is sustained over time and that exhibits consistency. That PCs advance in level and thereby have opportunities to experience MORE content and adventure. If you can't buy into that premise, it doesn't matter what system you're running nor (probably) what game.
SO, assuming you buy said premise, you need a system that sustains long-term play. And that is NOT just a matter of "bonus content." It's not just about adding additional levels of spell-casting or a larger selection of treasure and magic items or extra, more powerful monsters. If that was all there is to it then, sure, OSE Advanced might be your huckleberry. After all, it adds more content to OSE: AD&D classes, AD&D monsters, AD&D magic-items, etc.
But it's not the content (alone) that makes a game suitable for long-term play. Does OSE Advanced address issues of PC survivability that allows sustained play and advancement over time? AD&D does, adding clerical spells at 1st level (and bonus spells for WIS), increasing HD dice types, reducing penalties for low ability scores, adding rules for negative HPs, and increasing weapon damage versus large-sized monsters. Does OSE Advanced address issues of game economy, by adding x.p. and g.p. values for magic items, instituting training costs, and monthly expenses as AD&D does? Does OSE Advanced add systems that increase or promote verisimilitude like urban encounters, disease, racial relations (between sentient humanoids), discussions of medieval politics and taxes, folklore remedies and dungeon trappings? Does OSE Advanced introduce cosmological considerations, outer planes, interactions between clerics and their deities, dimensional cross-overs for even wilder fantasy adventures...as well as getting down to the nitty gritty of troop movements and costs for traditional war gamers?
Perhaps OSE Advanced DOES do all this? I honestly don't know, as I don't own the OSE Advanced books. But I know that 1st Edition AD&D does all this...and it does so in two books (the PHB and the DMG), one of which is 126 pages (and mostly "reference material:) and the other of which is 240 pages...of which more than half is non-instructional material: tables and charts and treasure descriptions and random dungeons and appendices and glossary and index and (repeated) cheat sheets.
SO...100 or so pages of DM-facing rules? For a system that supports long-term, sustained campaign play?
OSE Advanced Fantasy Player's Tome is 248 pages. OSE Advanced Fantasy Referee's Tome is 248 pages. Sure, much of that latter book includes the monster manuals...got to have more content!...but does it have the oomph to use that content? And even if it did...which I'm not sure it does...why not just stick with my 1E PHB and DMG? Their page count means they take up less space in my backpack when I take them on the road.
There are other advantages to using 1E. It is OLD and it is MODULAR. There is a LOT of material that has been written for it over the years. I don't use the Unearthed Arcana or the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide or the Manual of the Planes...but I could. I don't use the vast majority of suggestions and variants and house rules found in the pages of Dragon magazine...but I could. In general, I have enough experience with the system that it's not necessary for me to consult the plethora of grey-beard AD&D players that exist in various forums and discord channels and chat groups...but I could, if I needed to do so. Those resources are available, which are great aids for would-be DMs trying to get better at their craft.
"But JB, those books (the PHB and DMG) are so OLD! And clunky! And crunchy! Hell, they aren't even SOLD anymore!" Oh, wait. Yeah...
they are.
But okay, let's talk about "crunch." I know several folks via the blog-o-sphere who will swear up and down that they run a B/X or (more usually) a BECMI or RC game, and have for years...long-term, campaign play...using nothing more than the simpler, stream-lined rules these Basic games provide. That, in fact, they do not want additional complexity. And these are guys older than me, with more years of experience...competent, veteran Dungeon Masters. Why? Why does it work for them?
I cannot say...I haven't played in their games. I could speculate, but instead I'll focus on the question at hand: "Why choose AD&D?" I can only discuss (with confidence) why I choose AD&D. For on-going campaign play, I want a robust system, designed in conjunction with that "added content." For me, a B/X fan, AD&D functions better and for a longer time than the Basic alternative.
As said (at the start of this post), I have played a LOT of B/X...at home, on the road, in campaigns, at conventions, in my youth, and as an adult, with family, friends, and complete strangers. What I have found is that...as written...the game does not sustain play over the long-term. Rather, the system becomes a source of frustration.
Now some folks would say: "just add the changes you need to add to make the system sustainable." And that's fine advice. However, in practice what I find is that I simply end up adding pieces from AD&D. EXCEPT THAT a "patch" doesn't work as well as simply using the rule with the system for which it was designed and (presumably) play-tested.
I could use the treasure tables from the DMG, the classes and spell lists from the PHB, the monsters in the MM...but then why not just play 1E? I like that fighters improve in hitting at every level. Why not 'port the combat matrix into my B/X game? Why? Because I can simply play 1E and discard the extra books.
Why play AD&D? Why NOT play AD&D? What is the issue? That it's hard to find the specific rules you're looking for in the book? Because it's "poorly organized" (the common complaint)? It still has an index and a table of contents; it still has quick reference sheets at the back of the book. I don't know, fella...I have little problem finding info I need within the book. And it's easy enough to create my own cheat sheets (if needed). So...what else? You don't like the artwork? You don't like Gygax? I mean, what is it, really?
A lot of folks talking these days about ACKS and (the soon-to-be-published) ACKS II. Okay. I picked up ACKS: it's a 270 page book that takes B/X and adds some extra elements to extend game play, specifically (what is commonly referred to as) domain play for high level characters. Fine and dandy. But AD&D's system, the way it's written, extends "standard" adventure play into high levels, while giving you options for that "domain stuff." To be clear, a lot of ACKS "extras" can be seen as having their precursors in AD&D. And so I ask again: why not just play AD&D? Because you want a single, enormous book to flip through? Because you want new art? Because you don't like the occasional Gygaxian digression into statistical analysis or flanking maneuvers from his war-game days?
Okay.
So sorry folks. So sorry this post is so long, and that I've taken up so much of your time. After all, none of this is terribly important anyway...the most important thing is (of course) that you play, regardless of what you choose to play and/or what your reasons are for playing the system you choose. Hopefully, I have managed to communicate my reasons (for those who are so interested) and this will be an issue I don't have to address again in the future. Hopefully.
; )
